i suppose most men felt, as i felt, the reasonableness of mr. justice bray's remarks the other day on the preference of women for bags instead of pockets. a case was before him in which a woman had gone into a shop, had put down her satchel containing her money and valuables, turned to pick it up a little later, found it had been stolen, and thereupon brought an action against the owners of the shop for the recovery of her losses. the jury were unsympathetic, found that in the circumstances the woman was responsible, and gave a verdict against her.

of course the jury were men, all of them prejudiced on this subject of pockets. at a guess i should say that there were not fewer than 150 pockets in that jury-box, and not one satchel. you, madam, may retort that this is only another instance of the scandal of this man-ridden world. why were there no women in that jury-box? why are all the decisions of the courts, from the high court to the coroner's court, left to the judgment of men? madam, i share your indignation. i would "comb-out" the jury-box. i would send half the jurymen, if not into the trenches, at least to hoe turnips, and fill their places with a row of women. women are just as capable as men of forming an opinion about facts, they have at least as much time to spare, and their point of view is as essential to justice. what can there be more ridiculous, for example, than a jury of men sitting for a whole day to decide the question of the cut of a gown without a single woman's expert opinion to guide them, or more unjust than to leave an issue between a man and a woman entirely in the hands of men? yes, certainly madam, i am with you on the general question.

but when we come to the subject of pockets, i am bound to confess that i am with the jury. if i had been on that jury i should have voted with fervour for making the woman responsible for her own loss. if it were possible for women to put their satchels down on counters, or the seats of buses, or any odd place they thought of, and then to make some innocent person responsible because they were stolen, there would be no security for anybody. it would be a travesty of justice—a premium upon recklessness and even fraud. moreover, people who won't wear pockets deserve to be punished. they ask for trouble and ought not to complain when they get it.

i have never been able to fathom the obduracy of women in this matter of pockets. it is not the only reflection upon their common-sense which is implicit in their dress. if we were to pass judgment on the relative intelligence of the sexes by their codes of costume, sanity would pronounce overwhelmingly in favour of men. imagine a man who buttoned his coat and waistcoat down the back, so that he was dependent on someone else to help dress him in the morning and unfasten him at night, or who relied on such abominations as hooks-and-eyes scattered over unattainable places, in order to keep his garments in position. you cannot imagine such a man. yet women submit to these incredible tyrannies of fashion without a murmur, and talk about them as though it was the hand of fate upon them. i have a good deal of sympathy with the view of a friend of mine who says that no woman ought to have a vote until she has won the enfranchisement of her own buttons.

or take high-heeled boots. is there any sight more ludicrous than the spectacle of a woman stumbling along on a pair of high heels, flung out of the perpendicular and painfully struggling to preserve her equilibrium, condemned to take finicking little steps lest she should topple over, all the grace and freedom of movement lost in an ugly acrobatic feat? and when the feet turn in, and the high heels turn over—heavens! i confess i never see high heels without looking for a mindless face, and i rarely look in vain.

but the puzzle about the pockets is that quite sensible women go about in a pocketless condition. i turned to jane just now—she was sitting by the fire knitting—and asked how many pockets she had when she was fully dressed. "none," she said. "pockets haven't been worn for years and years, but now they are coming in—in an ornamental way." "in an ornamental way?" said i. "won't they carry anything?" "well, you can trust a handkerchief to them." "not a purse?" "good gracious, no. it would simply ask to be stolen, and if it wasn't stolen in five minutes it would fall out in ten." the case was stranger than i had thought. not to have pockets was bad enough; but to have sham pockets! think of it! we have been at war for three and a half years, and women are now beginning to wear pockets "in an ornamental way," not for use but as a pretty fal-lal, much as they might put on another row of useless buttons to button nothing. and what is the result? jane (i have full permission to mention her in order to give actuality to this moral discourse) spends hours looking for her glasses, for her keys, for the letter that came this morning, for her purse, for her bag, for all that is hers. and we, the devoted members of the family, spend hours in looking for them too, exploring dark corners, probing the interstices of sofas and chairs, rummaging the dishevelled drawers anew, discovering the thing that disappeared so mysteriously last week or last month and that we no longer want, but rarely the article that is the very hub of the immediate wheel of things.

now, i am different. i am pockets all over. i am simply agape with pockets. i am like a pillar-box walking about, waiting for the postman to come and collect things. all told, i carry sixteen pockets—none of them ornamental, every one as practical as a time-table—pockets for letters, for watch, for keys, for handkerchiefs, for tickets, for spectacles (two pairs, long and short distance), for loose money, for note-wallet, for diary and pocket-book—why, bless me, you can hardly mention a thing i haven't a pocket for. and i would not do without one of them, madam—not one. do i ever lose things? of course i lose things. i lose them in my pockets. you can't possibly have as many pockets as i have got without losing things in them. but then you have them all the time.

that is the splendid thing about losing your property in your own pockets. it always turns up in the end, and that lady's satchel left on the counter will never turn up. and think of the surprises you get when rummaging in your pockets—the letters you haven't answered, the bills you haven't paid, the odd money that has somehow got into the wrong pocket. when i have nothing else to do i just search my pockets—all my pockets, those in the brown suit, and the grey suit, and the serge suit, and my "sunday best"—there must be fifty pockets in all, and every one of them full of something, of ghosts of engagements i haven't kept, and duties i haven't performed, and friends i have neglected, of pipes that i have mourned as lost, and half packets of cigarettes that by some miracle i have not smoked, and all the litter of a casual and disorderly life. i would not part with these secrecies for all the satchels in oxford street. i am my own book of mysteries. i bulge with mysteries. i can surprise myself at any moment i like by simply exploring my pockets. if i avoid exploring them i know i am not very well. i know i am not in a condition to face the things that i might find there. i just leave them there till i am stronger—not lost, madam, as they would be in your satchel, but just forgotten, comfortably forgotten. why should one always be disturbing the sleeping dogs in the kennels of one's pockets? why not let them sleep? are there not enough troubles in life that one must go seeking them in one's own pockets? and i have a precedent, look you. did not napoleon say that if you did not look at your letters for a fortnight you generally found that they had answered themselves?

and may i not in this connection recall the practice of sir andrew clarke, the physician of mr. gladstone, as recorded in the reminiscences of mr. henry holiday? at dinner one night sir andrew was observed to be drinking champagne, and was asked why he allowed himself an indulgence which he so rigorously denied to his patients. "yes," he said, "but you do not understand my case. when i go from here i shall find a pile of fifty or sixty letters awaiting answers." "but will champagne help you to answer them?" asked the other. "not at all," said sir andrew, "not at all; but it puts you in the frame of mind in which you don't care a damn whether they are answered or not." i do not offer this story for the imitation of youth, but for the solace of the people like myself who have long reached the years of discretion without becoming discreet, and who like to feel that their weaknesses have been shared by the eminent and the wise.

and, to conclude, the wisdom of the pocket habit is not to be judged by its abuse, but by its obvious convenience and safety. i trust that some energetic woman will be moved to inaugurate a crusade for the redemption of her sex from its pocketless condition. a society for the propagation of pockets among women (s.p.p.a.w.) is a real need of the time. it should be a part of the great work of after-the-war reconstruction. it should organise opinion, distribute leaflets and hold meetings, with the mayor in the chair and experts, rich in pockets and the lore of the subject, to light the fire of rebellion throughout the land. women have won the vote from the tyrant man. let them win their pockets from the tyrant dressmaker.